Employers Can Fire You For Using Marijuana, But Brandon Coats' Case Could Change Everything

[Nic]

I'm reasonably sure this comes down to the fact that the business is the property of the owner and nobody has the moral right to tell him/her what they can or cannot do with the business. The owner of the business has the right to place whatever stipulations they want on employment at their company.

edit: In no way, shape, or form does that mean I agree with or condone the owner's decision.

 

[Jamesiv1]

Wait...wut? So, if you like to hang out in titty bars in your off time - you think your religious boss has a right to fire you over it???

why doesn't a business owner have the right to fire any one he damn well pleases? does an employee have a "right" to his job?

if I am the owner, and I don't like your behavior or your moral values, it's not unreasonable to think you might bring those to my workplace.

you're fired.

 

[asurfaholic]

Its always been the trouble with pot. Smoking a bowl does not make a person stoned for an entire month.

Lies

 

[Deborah K]

why doesn't a business owner have the right to fire any one he damn well pleases? does an employee have a "right" to his job?

if I am the owner, and I don't like your behavior or your moral values, it's not unreasonable to think you might bring those to my workplace.

you're fired.

Then you're really not that different from the government, if you think you're entitled to dictate to me what I do during my private time. Just sayin'.

 

[mtr1979]

Then you're really not that different from the government, if you think you're entitled to dictate to me what I do during my private time. Just sayin'.

I don't really care if I'm no different than the government. When own my own business I will dictate to employees how they are expected to act on and off of work and what substances they put into their body. If I'm working on some dangerous equipment I will not have a guy who is hungover, tweaking, or stone out of his mind next to me. End of story.

 

[Jamesiv1]

Then you're really not that different from the government, if you think you're entitled to dictate to me what I do during my private time. Just sayin'.

no. I'm not dictating at all - you can do whatever you want. you can do it working for someone else, that's all.

I suggest you're position is much more like the government - trying to dictate who a business owner can hire or fire.

 

[DamianTV]

I don't really care if I'm no different than the government. When own my own business I will dictate to employees how they are expected to act on and off of work and what substances they put into their body. If I'm working on some dangerous equipment I will not have a guy who is hungover, tweaking, or stone out of his mind next to me. End of story.

Then I wouldnt work for you if you insist on the authority to tell me what I can and can not do while not at work. Very simple free market solution.

 

[Jamesiv1]

Then I wouldn't work for you if you insist on the authority to tell me what I can and can not do while not at work. Very simple free market solution.

Exactly. You can choose not to work for me, I can choose not to let you work for me.

 

[jonhowe]

I don't really care if I'm no different than the government. When own my own business I will dictate to employees how they are expected to act on and off of work and what substances they put into their body. If I'm working on some dangerous equipment I will not have a guy who is hungover, tweaking, or stone out of his mind next to me. End of story.

That's your right. As the co owner of a small business, I totally understand. However, why not make the rule that no one can come to work hungover, tweaking, or stoned out of their mind? I drink and use marijuana sometimes; I've never been to work stoned, drunk, or hungover. Why not simply hire responsible people?

 

[Jamesiv1]

Why not simply hire responsible people?

any business owner would agree with that. if I am having a hard time finding responsible people, I might overlook your moral values or your behavior outside the workplace.

The point is simply that a business owner should be able to hire or fire any one he wants, for whatever reason he wants.

It's his dang business, for crying out loud. Government shouldn't be dictating who he can hire or fire.

 

[willwash]

My son-in-law is a tetraplegic from a devastating motorcycle accident. His neurologist gave him marinol during his 3 month hospital stay. Marinol is cannabis for those who don't know. Leg spasms are also called "toning", and they are extremely painful. Cannabis does give instant relief. I hope this case is won. Cannabis has many other uses too.

The fact that Marinol even exists proves the bullshit nature of this argument. What if he had gone through the "proper" channels (i.e., had been prescribed Marinol and paid big pharma $500 per dose instead of a few bucks in the medical marijuana market)? He would still have tested positive for THC but the cable company wouldn't be saying a word.

This might be a good workaround for people in this situation. Don't you need a doctor's recommendation in medical marijuana states? Couldn't that doc write you a scrip for Marinol as well (whether you filled it or not would be up to you) that is a get out of jail free card for testing positive for THC? Even if you worked for the federal government?

 

[qh4dotcom]

Wow, this is a complex issue when you really break it down.

It's not that really complex.

Employers have the right to fire any employee for any reason.

Now that does not mean the employer shouldn't suffer any consequences as a result of that....the free market should punish the employer.

 

[Jamesiv1]

a lady from Colorado told me some of the medical marijuana dispensaries have doctors sitting there writing scrips.

lol

 

[kcchiefs6465]

The fact that Marinol even exists proves the bullshit nature of this argument. What if he had gone through the "proper" channels (i.e., had been prescribed Marinol and paid big pharma $500 per dose instead of a few bucks in the medical marijuana market)? He would still have tested positive for THC but the cable company wouldn't be saying a word.

This might be a good workaround for people in this situation. Don't you need a doctor's recommendation in medical marijuana states? Couldn't that doc write you a scrip for Marinol as well (whether you filled it or not would be up to you) that is a get out of jail free card for testing positive for THC?

This assumes that there is some semblance of a patient/doctor relationship. The DEA, and its mandatory tracking of pharmaceuticals (some more than others), as well as mandatory prison sentences with many doctors made the example of, is simply too much to overcome. You have an abscess? Six Vicodin (5/500, no less).

These doctors are something else, lately... or rather, in my lifetime. (I've read that it wasn't always this way.)

Marinol isn't just given to anyone. Even if the symptoms could be helped, the doctors will not prescribe it. It's like Xanax or Desoxyn. If you did need it, good luck on getting a permission slip.

 

[willwash]

This assumes that there is some semblance of a patient/doctor relationship. The DEA, and its mandatory tracking of pharmaceuticals (some more than others), as well as mandatory prison sentences with many doctors made the example of, is simply too much to overcome. You have an abscess? Six Vicodin (5/500, no less).

These doctors are something else, lately... or rather, in my lifetime. (I've read that it wasn't always this way.)

Marinol isn't just given to anyone. Even if the symptoms could be helped, the doctors will not prescribe it. It's like Xanax or Desoxyn. If you did need it, good luck on getting a permission slip.

I just find it hard to believe that the same doctor who will write a prescription to a sick person (or "recommendation," or whatevertf they call it) to smoke a tarry plant would not write a Marinol scrip to get the patient the same medicine for the same symptoms with no harmful effects from the smoke.

But then, at that point all you need is the piece of paper - it'd be FDA and DEA approved permission to piss hot for THC.

 

[specsaregood]

./

 

[willwash]

He did have a good suggestion about that; but you are right I think. At my wife's work she can give out oxycontin and dilaudid without much ado. But when a patient requires marinol, she has to have a witness to remove it from a special safe where its kept apart from all other drugs and another witness to be there watching her administer it. Sounds crazy to me.

Yeah but you wouldn't even need to fill the prescription. When you piss hot for THC, just show them the prescription. HIPPA would prevent them from digging much further, I'd think.

 

[specsaregood]

Yeah but you wouldn't even need to fill the prescription. When you piss hot for THC, just show them the prescription. HIPPA would prevent them from digging much further, I'd think.

Yeah, I think it was a good idea; but I think KC is right that you might have a hard time getting the prescription itself as it is tightly controlled.

 

[Danke]

So he is in a wheelchair. I'm guessing he has a desk job. It is important to drug test desk jockeys as they could fall out of their chairs and hurt themselves.

 

[eduardo89]

An employer doesn't have the right to dictate to their employees what they can consume on their own time.

No, but an employee doesn't have the right to remain employed if their employer does not want to employ them.